Pilar Bautista, etc. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. Hilaria Uy lsabelo, etc., Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-8007, September 29, 1968 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Pilar Bautista, etc. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. Hilaria Uy lsabelo, etc., Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-8007, September 29, 1968 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Identifier: Supreme Court Decisions
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Real property – Philippines.; Real property -- Foreign ownership
Rights
Abstract: Pilar T. Bautista, the plaintiff, owns lands located in the City of Manila. She executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the defendant Hiinia Uy Isabeio, conveying the properties to the latter in consideration of Php l50,000, Php 90,000 of which was then paid. The question is whether the defendant spouses, assuming that they were Chinese citizens and that the sale was made to both and not solely to Hilaria Uy lsabelo, are disqualified to acquire and hold the property. The appealed decision is reversed and the plaintiff’s complaint dismissed, and the plaintiff are ordered to execute, within sixty clays from the finality of this decision, the necessary cancellation of the mortgage in question.
Fulltext: SUPREME COURT DECISIONS Antonio Delumen et al.. Petitioners-Appellees, 'VB. Republic of the Philippines, Oppositor-Appella:nt, G. R. No. L-6662. Jan'UM"'ll 28, 1954. 1. RULES OF COURT; REQUISITES FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. - A petition for declaratory relief must be p1·edicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a justiciable . controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whoSP interests are advei-se; CS> the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination. 2. IBID; ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IMPROPER IN THE CASE AT BAR. - In essence, the appeUees merely wanted to remove all .doubta in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for deClaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely t.o determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or to decide claims which art'! un· certain or hypothetical. (1 C. J. S., p. 1024.) And the fact that appellees' desires are thwarted by their ''own doubts, or by fears of others x x x does not confer a cause of action." Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solici.Uw Florencio Villa. mor for appellant. Romeo M. Eacareo.l for appellefis. DECISION PARAS, C. J.: On October 9, 1951, Antonio, Juan and Jullto, sumamed. Delumen, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Samar, allqing that they are legitimate children of Paciencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen who was declared a Filipino citizen by the same court in an order d'ated August 7, 1960, and praying said court to determine whether they are Filipino citizens and to declare their corresponding rights and duties. It is further alleged in the petition that the petitionei:s have continuously resided in the Philippines since their birth, have considered themselves _ as Filipinos, had exercised the right to vote in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the elections in 1951. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic o( the Philippines, filed an answer alleging that the petition states no cause of action, there being nc· ~dverse party against whom the petitioners have an actual -or justiciable controversy. After hearing, the Court of First Instance ol Samar rendered a decision declaring the appellees to be Filipinos by birth and blood. From this decision the Solicitor General had (lppealed. Under the first assignment of error, the appellant cites ou1· deei&'lon in Hilarion G. Tolentino vs. The BoGrd ot AceoW'l.tanc-y, et. al., G. R. No. L-3062, September 28, 19~1, wherein we held that: "A petition for declaratory i·elief must be predicated on the foUowing requisites: n> there must be a justiciable controversy; C2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests a.re adverse; <3> the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and <4> the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination." While the Solicitor General contends that a justiciable controversy is one involving 11an active antagonistic assertion of a ·1epl right on one side and a denial thereof -on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue (C. J. S.,. p. 1026>,'' and that in the present case 11 no specific person was mentioned in the petition pa having or claiming an ad.verse interest in the matter and with whom the appelleea have an actual controversy," the appellcies argue that, by virtue of the answer filed by the So. licitor General opposing the petition for declaratory relief, a ju.sticiable controversy thereby arose. We are of the opinion that appellant's contention is tenable, since there is nothing in the petition which even intimates that the alleged status of. the appellees as Fil_ipino citizens had in any instance been questioned or denied by any specific person or authority. Indeed, the petition alleges that the appellees have considered themselves and were considered by their friends and neighbors a.a Filipino oitizens, voted in the general eleCtions of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the ~tections of 1951, and it is not pretended that on any of said occasions their citizenship was controverted. It is not accurate to say, as appellees do, that an actual controversy :>.ro~ after the filing by the Solicitor General of an opposition to the petition, for the reason that the cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer. As a matter of fact, the answer herein alleges ·that the petition states no cause ·of action. In essence, the appellees merely wanted to remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or to decide claims which are uncertain or hypothetical. (1 C.J .S., p. 1024.) And the fact that &ppellees' desires are thwarted by their "own doubts, or by fears of others x x x does not confer a cause of action.'' (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. II, p. 148, citing Willing vs. Chieuo Auditorium Assn., 27'1 U. S. 2'14, 289, 48 Sup. Ct. 607, 609.> In 'fiew of what has been said, it becomes unnecesaary to discuss either the second contention of the Solicitor General that the trial 'court erred in holding that the petition for declaratory relief may be utilized to obtain a judicial pronouncement as to appellees' citizenship, or his third contention that the evidence <\oes not support the conclusion in the appealed decision that the appellees are Filipino citizens. Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the petition dismissed without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered • Pablo, Beng~on, Padilla, Montemay07", Re11es, Jugo, Bsutieta Angelo and Labrador, JJ,, concur. II Pilar Bautists, etc. et al., Pla.intiffs.AppeUatr&ts, 1'B· Biia.ri'a U11 lsa.belo, etc., Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-8007, September 29, 1968. CONSTITUTION; PROVISION THEREOF DISQUALIFYING ALIENS FROM ACQUIRING REAL PROPERTIES IN THE PHII.IPPINES. - The question is whether the defenda.nt spouses, assuming that they were Chinese citizens and that the sale was made to both and not solely to Hilaria Uy lsabelo, are disqualified to acquire and hold the property in question in view of section 1 of Article XII '>f the Constitution, as construed In Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 44 0. G. 471. In the case of Trinidad Gonza.ga de Cabauatan, et al. vs. Uy Hoo, et al., G. R. No. L-2207, decided on January 23, 1951, we already held that the Constitution was not in force during the Japantse military occupation and therefore the conatitutional pz:ovision disqualifying aliens from acquiring real propertic!s in the Philippines was not' applicable and the doctrine laid down in the Krivenko case cannot be invoked in a sale that took place during said occupation. This decision was followed in the latter case of Ricamara, et al. vs. Ngo Ki alias Sin Sim, G. R.- No. L-5836, decided on April 29, 1953. It resulia that the sale in quesfiion ha.a to be sustained, Quintin Paredes for defendants-appellants. Delgado and Flores and Alejandro de Sa.ntos for plaintiffsappellants. DECISION PARAS, C. J.: On August 18, 1943, Pilar T. Bautista ~ the owner of four parcels of land, with improvements, located at the corner of Azcarrag& and Ylaya Streets in the City of Manila, and more pR.rtiMay 31, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL cula.riy described in transfer certificates of title Nos. 40007 and 40008 of the Registe1· of Deeds of Manila, On said date she exe. cuted a deed of absolute sale in favor of the defendant Hiinia Uy Isabeio, conveying the properties to the _latter ~n c.onside1·ation of PlS0,000, P90,000 of which was then paid. Simultaneo~sly a mortgage was executed by Hiia.ria in favor of Pilar whereby it waa llf,ipulated that the bdance of P6().,000 was to be paid wi~ two years with interest at 6% per annum, and as a secunty a first 'mortgage was constituted in favor of Pilar on the same properties. Although the consideration mentioned in the deed _of sale was Pl50,000, there is no question that the true pu1·cha~~ price was PS00,000, P240,000 of which was paid in Japanese nuhtary notes and the balance of P60,000 was secured by the aforesaid mortgage. The deed of sal1! and the mortgage contract were presented on August 18, 1943 in the office of tb,i! Registra.r of Deeds of Manila for registration, but on August 31, Pilar withdrew said documents so as to prevent regiatration. However; through the filing of signed carbon copies of the instruments the necessary registration wae P.ffected and new certificates of title, Nos. 67070 and 67071, were issued in the name of Hilaria. In the early part of September, 1943, Pilar, assisted by her husband, instituted in the Court of First Insta.nce of Manila a conlplaint for annulment, subsequently amended, against Hilaria and her husband Eusebio Valdez Tan""Keh. On Septem~r 14, 1944, Pilar deposited· in court the sum of '240,000, intended to cover that part of the purchase price already paid by Hilaria. On the other hand, after Piiar had previously refused to accept a PNB certified check for P60,000 which Hilaria tendered in payment of the balance Secured by the mortgage; the said amount wa.s deposited in court. The records and the deposits were burned during the battle for the liberation of Manila, and as the parties were unable to recol)stitute the same, Piiar. instituted the .present action for the_ annulment of the deed of sale and the contract of mortgage hereina.bove referred to. It &pp.ears that the improvements on the land in question were huTiied, and the land -was occupied by the United States Army ~s part of the supply depot. The payment of the rentals by the Army has. been withheld until final adjudication of this case. After the Army had left, Eus~bio Valdez T8.nkeh took possession of the pro. perty and _ constracted thereon a building. The theorj. of. the plairitiff Pilar Bautista is that the defendants Hilaria Uy Isabelo 8.nd Eusebio Valdez Ta.nkeh were Chinese citizens and accordingly disqualified to purchase real propertiee in this c01ii'l.try; and that the consent ·of Pilar to the sale was obtained through duress and misrepresentation. On the other hand, it is contended for· the defendants th&t Hilaria was and is a Fllipino citizen; that. as appears ia the deed, she was the sole purchaser; and that tho deal was voluntary. After trial the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision finding that the sale was in fact to the defenda.nt spoueea who were Chinese citizens and therefore disqualified to acquire real property in· the Philippinee; that the sale was obtained through misrepresentation on the part of the defendants, in that Piiar was made to believe, contrary to wh&t is actually recited in the contracts, that the balance of P60,000 was to be paid after 'two yeare, without interest, and she could .continue occupying the portion of the improvements used by her as residence without any rental, and ~llecting for herself the rentale for the remainder of said improve.. ~en ts. The dispositive part of thJ decision reads as foilows: "IN VIEW OF ALL FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court her~b7 declares the deed of sale, Exhibit A, and the deed of mortgage, Exhibit B, null and void, and of no legal effect· and that the consignation in Court of the sum of P240,000.o0 in Japanese. Milita1-y notes w8.s legally made by the plaintiff, and therefore, she baa fully returned the 1>art of tho purchase price of the property received by her from the defendants. The Court also hereby QJ'ders the Register of Deed.I of Manna to cancel Transfer Ce.rtificates of Titles Nos. 67070 and 67071 issued in tli.e name of defendant Hilaria Uy. Iaabelo, and to issue new ones in the name of ,Plaintiff Pilar T. Ba.utist:i. The plaintiff is hereby absolved from the defendants' countercla.im, the same not having been sufficiently proven. No damages are awarded to said plaintiff; and no special pronouncement is made as to costs." From this decision both the plaintiff and the defendants have e.ppealed, the plaintiffs insofar as the decision faiis to d~e that they are the owners l)f the improvements erected by Eusebio Valdez Tankeh, to order the defendants to account for the renta~ collected by them, and to appoint a receiver; and the defendants insofar ai1 the deed of sale and mortgage contract are annulled. While the tria.J. court overt·uled the contention of the plaintiffs that there was duress on the part of ·the defendants, consisting ln the alleged fact t.hat Pilar was forced to accede to the sale lor ff!ar that t.he defendants would avail thentselves of their influence with the Japanese if Pilar had refused, it sustained the·contention that there was misrepresentation in the sense already above indicat. ed, namely, that the balance of PG0,000. 00 was to be pa~d after two years without inte1·est, instead of within two yea.rs with _interest, Pilar having the right to continue residing in the prenuses and collecting the rentals. We have examined the evidence thoroughly and found that its preponderance weighs on the side of. the defendants. Piiar Bautista is admittedly sn intelligent woman with .business experience, and it is fair to .assume that she would not sign the deed of sale covering her property of considerable size and value without ascertaining its terms and conditions. Ind~ there is enough evidence On record to show that Pilar not only read the document herself but called her daughter to read it aloud, and that even before the signing of the contract in the office of the Register of Deeds of M&niia, she again read the document. Of course she denies having read the deed, but this assertio~ ~ to be more unlikely than the theory of the defendants, considering, as already stated, her intelligence and business experience. ~t any rate, as aptly pointed out by the defendants, the al~eged mis1·epresentation could not ha.ve been decisive in the execution. of the deed of sale, the material and important factor undo:ubtedly being the adequacy of the price offered and paid; and there is no controversy on the latter point. This leads us to the question whether the defendant spouses, assuming that they were Chine.se citizens a.nd that the '!:ale was made to both and not solely to Hilaria Uy Jsabelo, are disqua1ificd to acquire and hold the property in question in view of section l of Article XII of the Constitution, as construed in Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 44 O. G. 471. In the case of Trinidad Gonzaga de Cabauatan, et al. vs. Uy Hoo, et al., G. R. No. L-2207, decided on January 23, 1951, we already held that the Constitution was n~t in force during the Japanese military occupation and there:fore the constitutional provision disqualifying &liens from acquiring real properties in the Philippines wa.s not applicable Bnd the doctrine laid down in tlle Krivenko case cannot be invoked in a sale that took place during said occupation. This decision was followed. in the latter case of Ricamar, et al. vs. Ngo Ki alia.s Sin Sim, G. R. No. L-5836, decided on April 29, 1953. It' results that the ssle in queetion hae to be sustained. Moreover, as also intimated in our decision in Gonzaga de Cabau&tan vs, Uy Hoo, et al., ewn assuming that the constitutional prohibition ·and the doctrine in the Krivenko case may be invoked by the herein pl&.intiffs, ae both parties were in pairi delicto, knowing that what they did was in Violation of the Constitution, the law will maintain them in their actual situation, in the absence of any sta~te to the contrary. Another consideration in favor of the d~ fendant Hilaria is that, after the death of her Chinese husband on April 3, 1948, she had admittedly been li'epa.triated and is now beyond question a Filipino citizen. Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the plain~f~s' ccmplaint dismissed, and the plaintiff& are ordered to execute, withm sixty clays from the finality of this decision, the necessary eancella.. tion of the mortgage in question. BengZOff., Tuaaon, Montemo.yor, Jugo a.ml pa.utista. Angelo, J, J., concur. M'I'. Ju.stice LabmdOf' took no part. Mt', Justtce Pa.blo, dissenting. REYES, J., concurring: I cOncur in the result, it appearing that Hilaria Uy lsabelo, 222 L~WYERS JOURNAL May 31, 1964 the buyer of the pl'operty in question, though married to a Chinese at the time of the sale, subsequently reeovered her Filipino citizen.. Ship after ihe death of her husband, III Philippine International Fair, Inc., et al., Petitione-rs vs. Fidel lbciii~, et al., Respondents, G. R. No. L-6448, February 25, 1954. 1. CERTIORARI: INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.-Although an order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory, still ~f it is clear thnt the trial court lacks jurisdiction a higher court of competent jurisdiction would be justified in issuing a writ of certiorari and prohibition, for the proceedings in the court below would be· a nullity .&:nd waste of time. 2. IBID; IBID.-In the absence of a clear showing that the respondent court lacks jurisdiction over the case which involve,; an actionable wrong .or a tortious act, the time-honored rule that from an interlocutory order an appeal doe.s not lie must be adhered to. If from an interlocutory order an appeal does not lie, an extraordinary leg8.l remedy cannot be resorted to have the order reviewed by a higher court. Victoriano Ya1nzon for petitioners. Cornelio T. Villareal, Antonio L. Gregorio and P. P. GaUudo for respondents. ,DECISION PADILLA, J.: This ill a petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition. As prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction was issued. The facts pleaded in the petition are: The Philippines International Fair, Inc. announced a~d published through daily newspapers the holding of an essay colitest entitled "500 Years of Philippine Progress" under the rules which read as follows: 1. The subject of this contest is: "500 Years of Philippine Progress." , 2, The length of the essay should be not less than 800 words nor more than 1,000 words. 3. The essay must be. a formal type and should be historically correct. 4. The contest is open to everybody, regardless of sex, age, and religion-except to members of the staff of the Philippines International Fair, Inc. 5. The contest opens July 1, 1952, and closes August 30., 1952. 6. Each of the 10 Manila dS:ily newspapers will offer cash prize of P200 in the name of the Philippines International Fair, Inc. and a certificate of merit to the first prize winners. 7, Each newspaper running the contest will select and appoint a Jury to determine the winning essay. 8, All first prize winners in the different newspapers are automatically eligible to the Grand Prize of P500 and a diploma to be presented by the Philippines-International Fair, Inc. 9, The DirP.<:tor General of the Philippines International Fair will select and appoint a Jury of three members, including the Chairman, to determine the winner of the Grand Prize. 10. The grand prize· winning essay becomes the property of the Fair, and will be printed in the Official Program of the 1953 Philippines International Fair. 11. Newspaper editors may formulate their own rules anrl. regulations provided these do not conflict. with those of · the Fair. CExhibit A.> Ten newspapers responded to the call and orga.nized preliminary contests, The newspapers certified their respectiv~ winners to the Director General of the Philltipines International Fair, Inc., who appointed the judges to pass upon and examine the various essays certified to by the newspapers as the winning essays in the preliminary contests. After study of the various essays submitted the board of judges adjudged Enrique Fernandez Lumba, representing La Opinion, as winner of the final contest and transmitted its findings to the Director General of the Philippines International Fair, Inc. Upon learning of the result of the contest and the award made by the board of judges, Ponciano B. J:acinto filed a complaint in the Cciurt of First Instance of Manila (eivil case No. 18255) where the validity of the award by the board of judges was drawn into question and the respondent court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of 11 bond in the sum of Pl,000. The Philippines International Fair, lne., Luis Montilla, Federico Mangahas and Juan Collaa: answered the complaint and set up these special defenses: (U that the subject matter complained of is not of such a character as would allow legally the Court to intervene and that for that reason the Cou1·t of First Instance of Manila has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and (2) that the complaint states no cause of action. Simeon G. del Rosario filed a petition for leave to intervene and filed his complaint in inb!:rvention. The defendants set up in their answer to the complaint in intervention the same special defenses. The plain .. tiff and i11tervenor asked that the case be set for a preliminary hearing on the legal issues raised in the first special defense to the complaints, the defendants invoking the rule laid down in the case of Ramon Felipe, Sr. vs. Hon. Jose. N. Leuterio, G, R. No. L-'606, 30 May 1952. After hearing, the re1pondent court ruled that it had jurisdiction of the case, A motion for reconsideration was denied. The writ of prelimiilary injunction was dissolved upon the filing by the defendants of a co~ter bond in the sum of P5,000 to answer for any damage which plaintiff Ponciano B. Jacinto and i:atervenor Simeon G. del Rosario might suffer by nason of the continuance of the deefndants' actions complained of. The hearin~ on the merits of the case was set for 29 January 1953 at 8:30 a.m., of which the parties were duly notified. The petitioners, defendants in the case pending in the respondent court, contend that the jurisdiction attempted to be exercised by the respondent court is contrary to law, And as there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of Jaw to prevent the respondent court from proceeding with the trial of the case, they pray for a writ_ of preliminary injunction and after hearing fo1· a writ of certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the respondent court from trying or hearing civil case No. 18255. In their answer the respondents allege and claim that in the essay contest in question there was an offer and acceptance which constitute the consent or meeting of the minds of the contracting parties; there was the essay contest, an object certain or the subject matter of the contract; and the prize of P500, a diploma to be presented by the Philippines IntemaUonal Fair; Inc. and the printing of the winning essay in the official program of the 1953 Philippines Intemational Fair were the cause or consideration of the contract; that the provisions or rules of the essay contest were nOt complied with, because the winning essay was written in Spanish and it contained 1,864 words, whereas the essay chosen by the committee as winning was written in English and contained less than 1,000 words; that in the FeliJ)e-Leuterio ease the attempt to revise the award was made because one of the judges admitted he had committed a mistake in grading, whereas in this case the board of judges made the award in violation of the rules promulgated for the contest; that in the Felii)e-Leuterio case it was a mere error, whereas in this case it was a commission of a clear, palpable and manifest wrong, in clear abuse of authority and in gross violation of the rights of respondent Ponciano B. Jacinto, who was the first prize winner in three newspapers, namely, Bagong Buha11, Evening News and Star Reporter; and that a wrongful award was made in this case. Although an order denying a motion to dismiss a: complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is interlocutory, still if it is clear flhat the trial court lacks jurisdiction a higher court of competent jurisdiction would be justified in issuing a writ of certiorari and prohibition, for the proceedings in the court below woald be a nullity and waste of time. But the facts alleged in the complaint filed in the respondent court, if proved, constitute an actionable wrong or a tortious act committed by the respondent bo&rd Of judges. In the absence of a clear showing that the respondent court Jacks jurisdiction over the case which involves an actionable wrong or a tortious aci, the time-honored rule that from an interlocutory order May 31, 19H LAWYERS JOURNAL
pages: 221-223